peachboy

Philosophical Reflections on PacMan From Hebrew, Satan is defined as adversary, foe or antagonist. In a game, there is no functionality without counterpoint. A game cannot exist without an antagonist. In the game of Pac-Man, there are three antagonists:- 1. The multi-coloured ghosts that chase the protagonist. 2. The maze, of which the protagonist is prisoner that restricts movement to certain dimensions. 3. The rules, which stipulate all dots need to be eaten before the protagonist can transcend. The conflict between protagonist and antagonist implies destruction of one or the other. Yet if we remove the antagonist, as per the convictions of the protagonist, the game collapses. Let's start with the removal of the first antagonist - the multi-coloured ghosts. Absent the chase, the protagonist is now able to traverse the maze at a leisurely pace. Still though, it remains a prisoner of the maze and is bound by the rules that pertain to ascension. Next then, we remove the second antagonist - the maze itself. With the maze gone, the environment is but a black-screen full of dots. The protagonist is no longer limited to horizontal / vertical movements and has the option of diagonal and even circular movements. Yet the protagonist is still bound by the rules that require eating up of all the dots. Finally therefore, we remove the last antagonist. The protagonist is no longer bound by the burden of having to eat all of the dots. In fact, the protagonist no longer has to eat any of the dots. With all antagonists now gone, a coin is inserted into the slot. A title appears that reads “Welcome to Pacman” which is then immediately followed by a second message: “Congratulations, you won the game.” The screen goes blank and the game ends. Clearly, that would be a commercial disaster. Herein lies the paradox of the game they call life. On the surface the protagonist seeks the destruction of the antagonist. Yet without an antagonist we would simply drift back into omniscience and the game of non-omniscience would surely end. If destruction of the antagonist occurs as a result of a competent player the result is the same. The predictability of winning marks the end. Conversely, if the antagonist becomes too competent for the protagonist, again the game collapses. The dream turns into a nightmare and the protagonists wakes. Therefore, as in the case of Pac-man the sweet spot of non-omniscient stability is found at the point where the protagonist and the antagonist is a perfect match. Anything other than that and you'll find yourself back home in non-duality.

Do you really understand this though? If you could go back in time and spend some time hanging out with your 5-year old self, would you find the issue of altruism so much of a challenge? Would it not naturally be the case that you would want to instinctively help/serve the 5-year old version of you, in any capacity, irrespective of whether they had the means to help you in return?

@Blackhawk Oh give me a break FFS. Grown-men electrocuting a non-armed woman for a non-violent clerical offence isn't justifiable in any fucking capacity. If a couple of burly officers cannot take control of a slim-framed woman without resorting to completely barbaric electrocution then they have failed in pretty much every category other than the Fucking Sadistic Cowards category. Failed as police, failed as men, failed as human, failed as spirit.

You mean like when a couple of Spanish policemen tase an un-armed woman simply because she took her mother to a psychologist's appointment against Covid regulations?

Because God is consciousness, and consciousness has no opposite. Absolute un-consciousness is impossible.

How can there be an end game when there is no end?

If you care more about your own mother than you do the homeless guy down the street, then you're doing it wrong. Love is the destruction of identity, be that personal identity or collective identity. It's not a test. It's not predicated on judgement or justice. There is only you, so love yourself. Forever and ever.

I think therefore Yahweh.

I saw one of his video's entitled "Why Loving Everyone Doesn't Work". I kinda lost interest after that. The premise of the video was flawed, was heavily based around personal identity, and didn't seem to grasp the implications of eternal existence. Something about three islands: An island inhabited by barbarians, an island inhabited by fluffy-rainbow-lightworkers, and an island habited by moderates. In his view, it was only a matter of time before the barbarians would invade Rainbow Island and slaughter all of the lightworkers including their pet unicorns. Therefore, we shouldn't love the barbarians. For one thing, this makes the mistake in thinking that lightwork/angelism is weak in the assumption that non-violence equals zero defense. Love does not mean zero defense. You only have to look at rabbits to know that "defense without suffering" is perfectly achievable, and with some creative imagination includes teleportation, invisibility, divine intelligence, and a box of magic tricks. But more importantly he fails to understand that each barbarian is simply an incarnation of you, played out at a different point in Eternity. Therefore, to take an antagonistic position against the barbarian is to take an antagonistic position against yourself. To not love the barbarian, is to not love yourself. To be frank, I think the man has a lot of fear in his energy field and should probably chill out a little.

My friend, if you can demonstrate or prove that un-consciousness has the capacity to occur then I'll personally buy you a sandwich. You said that "Unconsciousness is where consciousness came from." but alas I suspect you are deluding yourself. Absolute un-consciousness is logically and perfectly impossible. If you can prove otherwise then I'd certainly be impressed.

If I am having an experience of being a rock, then I'm conscious as the rock. Therefore the rock is conscious, because I am the rock.

Actually the issue about the rock as a seemingly inanimate object (separate from the animation of animals) only makes sense within the context of the sampling time of the finite human mind. It has been said that house-flies sample time at a different frequency from humans, so much so that a fast-moving human arm appears sluggish and slow from the perspective of the fly. In contrast, the fly appears whizzy and fast from the perspective of the human. Despite this, the two sampling frequencies are close enough to share the same space with a degree of mutual animation. Take the same concept, but translate it to the perspective of a rock and expand the sampling frequency to relative extremes. Perhaps something like one second of a rock's consciousness is equal to a million years of human existence. From the rock's perspective, the rapidly animating human would appear as ever-changing generations of indiscernible bubbling mush, like a kind of effervescent bacterium. In contrast, the rock would appear as a cold inanimate rock (even though it was actually an ever-changing indiscernible bubbling mush). So the idea that rocks are somehow different from animals is just another illusion within the broader illusion.

Only when I am the rock.

That's what she said. Let me know when I'm un-conscious and we can have a chat about it.

One easy way to spot a philosophical zombie is the inability for them to comprehend the impossibility of un-consciousness.

It's like an Asch Conformity experiment wrapped within a greater Asch Conformity experiment. On the one hand, if you vacuously take the vaccine without question, you fail the classic Asch test. On the other hand, if you start subscribing to external conspiracy then you jettison your divine sovereignty, and thus fail the greater Asch test that pertains to the Divine. After all, you're God. What's the worst that can happen?

Because from it's own perspective it's impossible to not be. In absolute terms, consciousness cannot experience its own un-consciousness. Therefore all that remains is consciousness.

Because it cannot not be. It's the easiest question of them all.

Think of it like a test. Remember that this is a dream-world. If you think that the vaccine is out to get you, then guess what?

To be fair, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, and this will be the first time they have been brought to market for human patients. The ability to understand their long-term effects is predicated entirely in the theoretic. Most of the common vaccines taken today were developed decades ago.

@Samsonov Do what your heart is telling you. Sometimes the universe connects with us in ways that are counter-intuitive to the cultural beliefs that we were raised with. Sometimes, in order to evolve, we have to inject a little anarchy into the mix and go against the grain of what our immediate peer-group (including our own family) might expect of us. Identity is a strange thing, but sometimes when I look up at the stars I automatically get a profound sense of who I am. The knowledge that brings instantly destroys any illusion of personal identity. When identity expands to include the infinite, so do your responsibilities and loyalties expand to include the infinite. Only you can make the decision, but I suspect you already know the truth. Maybe you need just a little bit more courage? Either way, the universe has your back. Good luck.

@Nthnl Un-consciousness is logically impossible. Therefore consciousness is eternal. You cannot experience the opposite of experience. If you're in control of the dream then there's no problem. But if you let the dream control you, then sooner or later you will find yourself in downtown Hiroshima. You can take this seriously, or you can take it flippantly. It doesn't matter, as long as you don't mind having your skinned burned off at some point.

How are you defining you? What variables are you using for your identity?

Death as state (the opposite of life) is impossible. Death as process (the opposite of birth) is possible, but only as an illusion.